Supreme Court Vacates Juvenile Convictions Back To 2003

Times Leader Photo
According to a Times Leader article out of Harrisburg Pennsylvania's Highest Court has vacated all of the juvenile cases heard before disgraced ex-Judge Mark Ciavarella since 2003. Its order also disallows retrial of all the cases but a handful.

In issuing the ruling, the high court said it agreed with Grim's assessment that Ciavarella had shown a "complete disregard for the constitutional rights of juveniles who appeared before him."

"We conclude that the record supports Judge Grim's determination that Ciavarella knew he was violating both the law and the procedural rules promulgated by this court applicable when adjudicating the merits of juvenile cases without the knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel by the juveniles," the court wrote.

Grim had also recommended that Luzerne County District Attorney's office be barred from retrying all but a handful of cases based on the double jeopardy statute, a constitutional prohibition against trying a person twice for the same crime. Grim based that recommendation on his finding that Ciavarella engaged in intentional conduct meant to deprive juveniles of their rights. That triggered the double jeopardy statute, he said.

The Supreme Court agreed with Grim that the vast majority of cases cannot be retried, but declined to adopt Grim's reasoning regarding the double jeopardy statute. The court instead said it was granting that relief solely "in the interest of justice."

SOP believes this order is far reaching and Judges in Pennsylvania should take note. In reading the court's order it is an indictment of actions by a judge that would introduce an element of prejudice by a judge.

The transcripts reveal a disturbing lack of fundamental process, inimical to any system of justice, and made even more grievous since these matters involved juveniles.

During the hearing conducted by President Judge Platt in Joseph v. The Scranton Times, 19 MM 2009, Ciavarella admitted under oath that he had received payments from Robert Powell, a co-owner of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care facilities, and from Robert K. Mericle, the developer who constructed the juvenile facilities, during the period of time that Ciavarella was presiding over juvenile matters in Luzerne County. It is a matter of record that Ciavarella routinely committed juveniles to one or another of these facilities. It is also a matter of record that Ciavarella failed to disclose his ties to Powell, much less the financial benefits he received in connection with the facilities to which he routinely committed Luzerne County juveniles. Ciavarella’s admission that he received these payments, and that he failed to disclose his financial interests arising from the development of the juvenile facilities, thoroughly undermines the integrity of all juvenile proceedings before Ciavarella. Whether or not a juvenile was represented by counsel, and whether or not a juvenile was committed to one of the facilities which secretly funneled money to Ciavarella and Conahan, this Court cannot have any confidence that Ciavarella decided any Luzerne County juvenile case fairly and impartially while he labored under the
specter of his self-interested dealings with the facilities.

At a federal hearing yesterday Mark Ciavarella had "No comment." FINALLY!

Legal Mess Fallout From Juvenile Detention Center Debacle

Michael Rubinkam and Mark Scolforo Of The Associated Press write an article featured in the Allentown Morning Call regarding the legal mess that will remain in reviewing the juvenile cases of Luzerne County's court fiasco. Judge Grimm was ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review some 2,500 cases to determine if there is a remedy needed for lack of legal representation when juveniles appeared in the courtroom of former disgraced Judge Mark Ciavarella.

As Rubikam and Scolforo explain that task will not be an easy one.

The judge handling the matter for the state Supreme Court now faces the more daunting task of figuring out how to restore the legal rights of children convicted of serious offenses without endangering the public's safety or creating new problems of restitution or sentencing.

''It's going to be an extraordinarily difficult matter to conclude,'' Berks County Senior Judge Arthur E. Grim, appointed to review thousands of cases handled by a disgraced Luzerne County judge dating to 2003, said Friday. ''At this point, I'm not prepared to tell you what the answer will be, because I don't know.''

Restitution plays an important role in Pennsylvania's juvenile courts and will factor into how the court disposes of the Ciavarella cases, said Jim Anderson, executive director of the state Juvenile Court Judges' Commission.

Also, a juvenile offense can raise the minimum sentence that an adult defendant gets in Pennsylvania, so any conclusions about expungement could, in some cases, result in early release of state prison inmates.

''Juvenile adjudication may prevent someone from being hired for certain kinds of jobs, may prevent someone from owning a firearm, all kinds of things,'' Anderson said.

Grim, who is chairman of the Juvenile Court Judges' Commission, said Friday that in some cases, a new trial might be the best solution. But that raises another problem -- Pennsylvania law prevents retrial of anyone who is at least 22 years old as a juvenile.

What cannot be lost in this process are that some of those cases involve juveniles justly sentenced for offenses like car theft, drug dealing, and assault. And more importantly we cannot lose sight of the affected victims of juvenile offenders in this process.

A Closer Look At The Rights Violations

A deeper look into the juvenile rights case against former Judge Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan paints a clearer picture about the Juvenile Law Center's efforts. After you read this information one has to wonder why the Supreme Court dimissed their first and second requests for review. View this PowerPoint presentationto glean a glimpse of what was passed on to me by law enforcement.

A look at our Constitution will provide one of the answers concerning the charges against Ciavarella and Conahan. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel and other rights designed to ensure that an accused individual receives a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

Apparently the former judges violated the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights(along with the Fourteenth Amendment which made the Sixth Amendment apply to states). Although Ciavarella and Conahan sat on the bench in Luzerne County they were under the jurisdiction of the state.

Here are two important rules of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission
42 Pa.C.S. §6337 (right to counsel) and Rules 150-152, Pa.R.J.C.P. (counsel).

§ 7-2 Attorney Representation-Juveniles are entitled to representation by counsel at every stage of a delinquency proceeding; those who are “without financial resources or otherwise unable to employcounsel” are entitled to court-appointed counsel. The first time a juvenile appears before thecourt unrepresented, the judge must inform him of these rights in plain language.

It should be remembered that not all juveniles understand the term “counsel,” or even “attorney,” and that even apparently sophisticated ones may not fully grasp the need for an advisor and advocate in the situation in which they are placed. The basic points to be impressed uponeach juvenile are that having a lawyer in court (1) is expected, (2) is free, and (3) helps the system function as it should. The court may continue proceedings at any time to enable anunrepresented juvenile to obtain counsel. If an attorney is to be assigned, the assignment must occur prior to the detention hearing if the juvenile is detained, or otherwise prior to the adjudication hearing. Once an attorney has been assigned or has entered an appearance on behalf of a juvenile, representation continues until court supervision is terminated and the case closed, unless the attorney is permitted to withdraw.

Waiver of Counsel- A juvenile may waive the right to counsel, but only if the waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary and the court has tested its basis by means of an on-the-record colloquy with thejuvenile (see sidebar “A Recommended Waiver Colloquy”). In general, as a matter both of law and of fundamental fairness, the court should be extremely reluctant to accept a juvenile’s waiver of the right to counsel. The JCJC Standards Governing Hearing Procedures provide that a juvenile may not waive his right to counsel “unless he has had the opportunity to consult with an interested and informed adult” who is “primarily interested in the welfare” of the juvenile and aware of the rights guaranteed to him under the constitution. Judges should be extremely reluctant to accept ajuvenile’s waiver of the right to counsel.

Pre-Adjudicatory Procedures § 7-3 Judges should not only be skeptical regarding attempts to waive the right to counsel, but alert to the possibility of interfamilial conflicts of interest in this area. The right to counsel is a personal one, and may be waived only by the juvenile, not by the juvenile’s family. Where there is reason to believe that a parent’s interests may be in conflict with the juvenile’s, and that the juvenile has been induced to waive his right in the service of a parental interest, it may be necessary to conduct separate colloquies regarding the positions of the family members—with the juvenile’s occurring out of the hearing of his parents. The court may assign “stand-by counsel” whenever a juvenile waives representation. In any case, the waiver applies only to the hearing for which it is made. Not only may it be revoked at any time, but the court must inform the juvenile of the right to counsel again at each subsequent hearing in the case.

However, the former judge is not the only culprit in this scheme. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed Judge Arthur E. Grim of Berks County to review Luzerne County juvenile court proceedings that may have been tainted by the criminal allegations against former judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan. It is my information that juveniles who took a lawyer to court will not have their cases reviewed by Judge Grim. Their remedy might be instituting a malpractice case against the lawyer who prevented proper representation before Ciavarella.

Look at this statement which appeared in the Times Leader.

The Supreme Court’s order directs Grim to identify juveniles who were not represented and those who were committed to the two juvenile centers in question.

What a "grim" prospect for those parents who had representation. I know, I know.